Department of Psychology, University of North Carolina, Asheville, NC 28804, USA.
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2011 Feb;37(1):85-99. doi: 10.1037/a0019252.
The relationship between interference and facilitation effects in the Stroop task is poorly understood yet central to its implications. At question is the modal view that they arise from a single mechanism-the congruency of color and word. Two developments have challenged that view: (a) the belief that facilitation effects are fractionally small compared with interference effects, or nonexistent altogether; and (b) the finding that interference and facilitation effects are inversely correlated. Statistical simulations, reanalysis of past data, and two new experiments indicate that facilitation is robust and substantial when congruency is deconfounded from lexicality, and that the inverse correlations are mostly spurious. Instead, interference and facilitation are uncorrelated, or at most weakly but inversely related. Resolution of response conflict and lexical convergence can explain either finding. Modeling and interpretation of the Stroop task must distinguish between nonspecific lexicality-based effects and specific color-word congruency effects.
斯特鲁普任务中的干扰和促进效应之间的关系理解得很差，但对其影响至关重要。有一个主流观点认为，它们源于一个单一的机制——颜色和单词的一致性。有两个发展挑战了这一观点：（a）认为促进效应与干扰效应相比微不足道，或者根本不存在；（b）发现干扰和促进效应呈反比相关。统计模拟、对过去数据的重新分析以及两项新实验表明，当一致性与词汇性解耦时，促进作用是稳健和显著的，而相反的相关性大多是虚假的。相反，干扰和促进作用是不相关的，或者最多是弱相关，但呈相反方向。解决反应冲突和词汇收敛可以解释这两种发现。斯特鲁普任务的建模和解释必须区分基于非特异性词汇性的效应和特定的颜色-单词一致性效应。
